Sometimes, you read something that feels both nostalgic and painfully relevant. That’s exactly how I felt reading the reflection article by Thomas L. Good, one of the pioneers in research on teacher expectations and their effects on students. His look back on over 50 years of research radiates a love for the profession—and frustration that many of those insights have barely made it into (international) education policy. And believe me, that makes it both thought-provoking and a little confronting.

Good takes us back to 1968, a year of social unrest and civil rights protests in the U.S., when most people still believed that schools and teachers had little influence on student achievement. Against that backdrop, Rosenthal and Jacobson published their now-famous Pygmalion in the Classroom—a study suggesting that when teachers believed certain students would “bloom,” those students actually performed better. Magic? Not quite. The study was heavily criticized, and many people still cite it without ever having actually read it—but it did spark something: the idea that expectations do matter.

Good decided to dig deeper. No vague labels like “this student will blossom,” but a close look at real classrooms: how do teachers behave toward students they believe to be high- or low-achieving? The answer: students seen as “strong” were asked more questions, given more chances to respond, and received more positive feedback. Those with lower labels? Mostly silence or criticism. And that effect wasn’t limited to a single classroom—it also varied hugely between classrooms. Some teachers simply gave all students more opportunities. Those differences are still underexplored.

What makes this study so powerful is its honesty about what we do—and don’t—know. Yes, some teachers treat students unequally. But no, that doesn’t mean they alone are responsible for the gap between high- and low-achieving students. Students also push back and shape the dynamic. Expectations are not a one-way street but a dance of action and reaction. That idea—that classroom events are co-regulated by students and teachers—runs like a red thread throughout the article.

What stuck with me most is that Good is never preachy. He’s critical but always nuanced. He acknowledges that expectations and teacher effectiveness matter, but he also warns that it’s naïve to think that teachers alone can close achievement gaps. Social inequality doesn’t start in the classroom, but it can be amplified—or softened—there.

What’s unfortunate for Good, after all these decades of solid research, is that policymakers continue to ignore these insights. Or worse, in the U.S., they misuse the research to evaluate teachers with questionable testing tools. The real takeaway should be this: give teachers the time, space, and support to engage with their own expectations—not through checklists, but through dialogue, reflection, and collaboration.

Good ends with a warm plea: listen to teachers, work with them, not around them, and keep looking for ways to translate research insights into classroom practice. There are no magic recipes—just usable tools.

Abstract of the article:

This article reviews over 50 years of research on teacher expectations and teacher effectiveness. In addition to describing these research traditions and findings, I tie the research in these evolving fields to the societal issues in play when the research was conducted and connect historical and emerging work. I describe the enormous growth of knowledge in both fields and its potential for practice. Among many outcomes, these two research traditions yielded clear evidence that teachers impact student achievement. Despite the potential value of this research, it has largely been ignored by policy makers, and when used, has been misused. I contend that policy makers have focused on the weaknesses of normative teaching and have ignored teachers’ strengths and knowledge. Of course, aspects of normative teaching can be improved, as can teacher expectations and teacher effectiveness research. Current and continuing research has some capacity for addressing the opportunity and achievement gaps that separate more advantaged and marginalized students; however, teachers and schools alone cannot resolve these vast opportunity differences that are available to American students.